Liability for storm damage

MacDanger

Hypothetical situation here but the recent stormy weather got me wondering (there was an outdoor seating area in a local cafe blown down the street yesterday morning); say I have something in my garden (e.g. a trampoline )which blows away during a storm and damages my neighbour's car; it then blows on and damages a second car further down becoming lodged there (so the 2nd neighbour has a decent level of proof of what caused the damage).

What's the story in terms of liability and coverage by insurance?

Obviously as a good neighbour, I'd be morally obliged to make good with both neighbours and I'd assume I'm legally liable for the second car since it's clearly my trampoline lodged in their windscreen but am I legally liable for the damage to the first car since it could have been any debris which caused the damage?

Wrong forum I know but from an insurance point of view, I'm guessing house insurance wouldn't cover something like this. If the offending party is a business, would their insurance cover it?

I am almost certain but this may be fallacy that “acts of god” are not covered by most insurers and you personally can’t be held liable.

Now if the cafe you mentioned had to have the seats secured as part of their permit to have them out and they didn’t then they could be in trouble.

But no I don’t think you can be held liable for a trampoline being blown onto the road and wrecking a car.

Peregrinus

Storms happen, and they cause loss. Who should bear that loss?

The general answer we as a society have come to is; the risk of loss falls in the first instance on the person whose property is damaged. If they don't want to carry that risk they effect insurance to cover it.

So your neighbours — both of them — should claim from their car insurers (or possibly, if their cars were parked on their property at the time, on their house insurance). Their insurance policies may or may not cover storm damage — if they don't the are pretty shîte policies and your neighbours may regret picking the cheapest option — but that's not your problem.

On special facts your neighbour might be able to make a case that you are at fault - e.g. the trampoline was improperly erected or secured or otherwise unsafe - but this isn't established simply by pointing to the fact that it blew away in a storm. Things blow away in storms.

If I put up an unsafe structure, for example, and it blows down in a storm and lands on your car, and - this bit is crucial - it wouldn't have blown down if I had put it up properly, you can sue me not because I owned the structure but because I was responsible for it being unsafe. But in the absence of facts like that about your trampoline, I don't think your neighbours would have a claim against you.

Shane119

Would the same principle apply in relation to trees on your property that are felled by a storm and cause damage to a neighbour’s property?

Peregrinus

Yes. You don't have a liablity unless, e.g., the tree was dying or rotten and you failed to deal with it properly, and that's why it came down.

dennyk

It would likely come down to whether you were negligent and failed to take reasonable precautions to ensure your property wouldn't cause damage or injury to other people. If you secured your trampoline in a reasonable manner but the wind was so strong that it still blew it away and it damaged someone else's property, it's unlikely you'd have any legal liability; that's basically an "act of god" and is outside of your control. If you took no precautions to secure it against being blown away by the wind and simply plopped it out in your garden and left it out there despite knowing there was a strong storm coming, then it's possible someone might have a valid claim against you if it blew away and damaged their property.